Thanks for all comments
COPPERS
I wasted 3 minutes of my life reading that.
This is good, LOL it could fit into Shameless. Have you ever offered your talents to them?
Quote: Rockabilly @ February 6, 2008, 1:17 PMI wasted 3 minutes of my life reading that.
Blimey, Chimes, this never got this kind of reaction on Writersdock!
bushbaby's is similar though.
I must admit that whilst I think that this is well written and flows extremely well I'm afraid I don't find it particularly funny.
All the best anyway.
garyd, how do you mean mine is similar?
Do you still go on WD?
bushbaby, I mean your reaction to Chime's piece.
I go on WD occasionally to see what is(n't!) happening.
I thought some of it was very laboured (e.g. the whole "there's noone you haven't had" business) - especially so as it's such standard fare.
Personally I think a lot of the stuff people are bandying about at the minute suffers from over-direction. I mean, it takes time to read that too so if one can't bear to trim the lines, at least trim something like this:
DAVE SIGNALS TO THE OTHER POLICEMEN WHO RUN TO THE BACK OF THE VAN, OPEN THE DOORS AND DRAG OUT A SOFA, WHICH THEY CARRY QUICKLY UP THE PATH TO VICKY’S HOUSE
down to
THE POLICEMEN TAKE A SOFA OUT OF THE VAN AND INTO VICKY'S HOUSE.
Perhaps I am wrong to suggest this as it does not create as exact a picture in the reader's head, but I feel a lot of the direction is unnecessary (Including the preponderance of BEATS... not especially so in this sketch, but generally... having said that, were those two beats really necessary? I mean, they came after full stops so I think not). I mean, the actors and director (and commissioning producer) are expected to see what can be done with the script without having *everything* explicitly written out for them.
Certainly for the direction I feel there is a fine line to be struck between saying the essentials and brevity.
Aaaaanyway that's probably me talking as a journalist and wishing to hone everything down (something I seldom do in my regular speech, as evidenced here).
Generally I thought it was ok but again, despite protestations of a contrary writing style, there seem to be a few what I would call "naff" jokes, e.g. the "straight in, straight out" gag. It screams out for a BOOM-BOOM-clash!
I can see that you've tried to open it with a "bang" but partly as a consequence of this the whole thing seemed a bit of a muddle to me, diving around, uncertain of where it was going. Some bits were ok (I quite liked the business with the little kid) but for me it never really escaped from the mediocre.
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 3:42 PMOkay, James - another master class in scriptwriting for you.
rhubarb rhubarb
Charging you - it's a police series - get it?
Yes... I'm not an imbecile, Chimes, so please don't talk to me like one. I believe I said 'obviously it wouldn't paint as clear a picture' in my original post. I still believe that you're over-egging the pudding with so much detailed direction, because the fact is, people are not idiots and the producers, directors and actors should be able to see what's going on without masses of direction.
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 3:42 PMOkay, James - another master class in scriptwriting for you.
Isn't a master class given by a master?
My mum said, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 3:42 PMOkay, James - another master class in scriptwriting for you.
As far as I'm aware we're all amateurs here 
And the use of the word 'another' presumes there's been a previous masterclass. 
James is right, COF. In your other posts, you seem remarkably keen on conciseness (which I admire btw, as an artform). You spot it in other people's work but then reject an opportunity for brevity in your own work where it matters most: in a sketch, brevity is king.
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 3:42 PM"DAVE SIGNALS TO THE OTHER POLICEMEN . . ."
shows that the forthcoming delivery is under Dave's supervision.
". . . WHO RUN TO THE BACK OF THE VAN, OPEN THE DOORS AND DRAG OUT A SOFA . . ."
shows that the operation is being done quickly. It also established Dave's 'authority'.
. . . WHICH THEY CARRY QUICKLY UP THE PATH TO VICKY’S HOUSE" further establishes the need for speed.
Personally, having Dave address the other coppers as "lads" will also and more economically reinforce the authority. "Right, get it indoors, sharpish, lads" is so much faster and easier on the eye than the dense direction. You'll easily find a more apt and elegant line of dialogue, that will kick my throwaway example into touch.
A single line of dialogue can wipe out top-heavy direction. Use it wherever possible.
You say you establish Dave's supervisory role in the opening phrase but then feel the need to re-establish it in the next phrase of the very same sentence. So, to justify the tautology of reinforcement, you either didn't establish it clearly enough in your own mind or feel that the audience may not have picked it up. Either way, it just needs rewording not repeated reinforcing, imo. 
------
Ditto with speed, where you similarly reinforce it twice in adjacent clauses of the same sentence.
-----
You say the image of cops running up the path is 'funny' but there is no humour present in the supplied direction:
. . . WHICH THEY CARRY QUICKLY UP THE PATH TO VICKY’S HOUSE
That doesn't read to me like Keystone Cops. If you intend it to be a humorous image then you need to write the humour in. Saying it's a funny image is a bit lazy, especially when the direction supplied is drained of humour.
-----
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 3:42 PMIt also establishes the fact that Vicky's house has a garden and a pathway at the front.
Why? What relevance does the house having a garden and path have to do with the humour? If it was to play any part in the humour, I'd have thought it would have been funnier if it was a council block stairwell.
You're so good at spotting extraneous detail in other people's sketches (unneeded names and ages etc) but then insist that the garden and path needs establishing when it then plays absolutely no role in the funny.
Imo, the direction is way top-heavy, more screenplay than sketch. There's unneeded details; tautology; and you try establishing a heirarchy in direction when one line of dialogue or even no heirarchy would work just as well.
And yes, I'm more than painfully aware that I can't follow my own advice too
So what did you think it was?
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 5:59 PMAnyone who's ever watched a script turned into 'something completely different' by producers, directors and actors will know the importance of directions in a script.
But they STILL ignore the directions and do it how they 'see' it. That's the cruel pain that goes hand-in-hand with the joy of getting your work from page to screen.
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 6, 2008, 5:59 PMBasically, if it matters - make it clear in the script. Brevity is always to be striven for but not at the expense of quality.
I think you'll find repetition of the same idea in the same sentence is not quality, it's tautology. 
And I'm still at a loss to see why the garden and the path mattered to any degree in this piece, sketch or otherwise.
I cant wait.